The Arizona Rifleman

The recent court ruling in California, which overturned the state’s gay marriage ban¹ cited the Heller case thusly:

Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis
for a law. Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970). The “ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational. Heller, 509 US at 327. Rather, the state must have an interest
apart from the fact of the tradition itself.

Cool.

1. I agree with the court; banning gay marriage is wrong. [↩]

Just a reminder to fellow Arizonans: the new law that removes the permit requirement for concealed carry goes into effect on July 29th. Please wait until then before carrying concealed without a permit.

Also, please note that there are some perks to having a permit, such as discounts at the occasional pro-gun-rights eatery, as well as bypassing NICS checks on new gun purchases, and interstate reciprocity.

…and big things happen. How come I always miss the big things like the McDonald ruling coming down?

Oh well. Many congratulations to Gura, NRA, the law-abiding citizenry in oppressed localities in the US, et al.

I don’t understand the objection that some people have to Mirandizing terrorist suspects in the US, particularly when they’re apprehended by civilian police agencies.

That said, I can see why it would not be appropriate for the military to Mirandize people they capture on foreign battlefields, but for domestic police agencies arresting people on US soil? No excuse, period. That the FBI contacted the CIA when arresting the suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad to see if they should Mirandize him left me chilled — he’s a US citizen on US soil, yet it’s not automatically assumed that he should be accorded the rights and protections that any other US citizen being arrested? What have we done? How far will this go? How do we stop this?

I’m a firm supporter in due process, and feel that everyone, even suspected terrorists, deserves to be treated humanely, have access to legal counsel, and a fair and speedy trial. I strongly feel that there are absolutely zero circumstances where torture is justified¹ .Indeed, I feel that it’s these very principles that separate civilized people from uncivilized people.

Indeed, I’d like to see such protections extended to those captured by the military overseas. While I understand that different rules apply to the military than to civilian police agencies and courts (and that different rules apply to “prisoners of war” vs. “detainees”), I don’t see how it’s unreasonable to ask that these basic protections be afforded to such detainees. If they’ve truly done bad things, then it shouldn’t be difficult to show that in an open and fair court and then legally sentence them to an appropriate punishment (e.g. imprisonment) if they’re convicted. If they haven’t done bad things, then they should be released. Monitor them, perhaps, if its suspected that they’ll lead investigators to other bad guys, but holding people without trial is simply wrong.

The fact that we’re holding detainees without trial and even considering not Mirandizing terrorist suspects — US citizen or not — arrested by civilian police agencies is a dark stain upon this nation’s honor.

1. That doesn’t mean we need to cuddle prisoners during interrogation, but torture is wrong. Period. [↩]

I was recently summoned for jury duty¹. In the paperwork, I noted that they prohibit weapons beyond a security checkpoint. As this is a courthouse, I have no problem with such a prohibition.

Still, I wanted to be sure I could legally carry up to the checkpoint, so I gave them a call. It went something like this:

Operator: “Jurry Commissioner’s office. How may I help you?”
Me: “Hi, I was recently summoned for jury duty and in the paperwork, I noticed that weapons are prohibited past the security checkpoint. Is there a place to check legally-carried weapons prior to the checkpoint?”
Operator: “Yes. That’s not a problem. We have plenty of lockers to hold privately-owned weapons for jurors.”
Me: “Excellent. Thank you.”

Not only is the lawful carriage of arms commonplace here, but even the courthouses have lockers to store firearms prior to the checkpoint. I seem to recall there actually being a law about this, as I saw similar lockers at the Motor Vehicles Department, but I can’t recall what specific law that was…

I love the fact that I can make a call regarding the storage of privately-owned weapons and get a simple, factual response. No assumption that I’m a police officer (as has happened a few times at the airport when checking guns), no questions of “Why would you bring a gun to a courthouse?”, or anything else along those lines.

1. Why anyone would want an educated, ex-military, libertarian, gun-owning physics student on their jury is beyond me, but they sure love summoning me. [↩]

As of the beginning of the month, it’s legal to store firearms inside locked vehicles in the parking lots of universities in Arizona.

Naturally, there’s been a small, but relatively minor, amount of PSH about this whole issue. One of the comments submitted to the Daily Wildcat — the University of Arizona’s daily newspaper — was from Brett Wolgemuth, a systems engineering graduate student who was an undergrad at Virginia Tech on that fateful day in April in 2007.

I’ve commented on a few of his sentences below:

Allowing firearms on campus under any condition is a recipe for disaster.

Oh? Care to cite historical data that would back this claim up? Police carry guns on campus all the time without any problems, and citizens in several other states (such as Utah, among others) have carried concealed firearms on campuses for some time without issues.

It only takes one incident in a parking lot, or near a car for someone to go off.

I don’t disagree. However, this is exceedingly unlikely — there’s a vast number of firearms owners in this country, and only the tiniest number of them just “go off” every year. I’d be far more concerned with someone getting mugged, assaulted, or raped in a campus parking lot.

Yes, I do have faith in my fellow man, but I’m not willing to bet my life on it.

Same here. That’s why I carry nearly everywhere I’m not legally forbidden to do so, but I digress.

The law not only allows people to conceal guns in their cars, but they do not have to have a concealed weapons permit to do it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that would mean that anyone with a gun could come onto campus and have it concealed in his car.

That is, as best as I understand the law, correct. Considering that one can openly carry firearms just about anywhere in Arizona without any permits or background checks at all and there’s essentially no incidents of misbehavior by such people, I hardly see what the problem is. While concealed weapons permits are available to those wishing to carry discreetly, the law does not require such a permit to transport or store a firearm, even a loaded one, in a vehicle’s storage compartments so long as it’s in a holster or other similar case (so as to prevent accidential discharge).

What’s the problem?

Some of you may say that this would act as a deterrent. You make one critical assumption, you assume that a majority of people have a firearm, have brought it on campus, and are willing to use it in case they need to defend themselves.

I think that Mr. Wolgemuth is somewhat confused: the purpose of allowing the storage of arms in cars is not for self-defense on campus. Nobody is thinking that, in the event of a violent crime, they’ll be able to flee the building, run to the parking lot (almost always located around the perimeter of campus), retrieve their personal firearm, then return to be a Big Damn Hero(tm).

Rather, it’s for people who legally carry their firearms while not on campus — if the university prohibits the storage of arms in private vehicles on campus, that infringes on the rights of people who commute to school and wish to carry while traveling to and from the university.

Also, if you believe that you need to bring a gun on campus to feel safe, why would you go to a school where you don’t feel safe?

Feeling safe has nothing to do with actually being safe, as has been tragically demonstrated in various places in the last few years: Luby’s Cafeteria, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. The University of Arizona has even had a similar violent incident in its past. Clearly it’s been demonstrated that violent acts can occur anywhere, regardless of how safe one feels.

There is a reason we have a dedicated police department.

So did Virginia Tech. Fat lot of good it did them.

So does Tucson, but there’s still a substantial number of victims of violent crimes. I bet they “felt safe” prior to being victimized.

The police can’t be everywhere at once, nor can they respond instantly. Indeed, the courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect someone from harm.

Although this is not a response to gun control, it inevitably comes back to it.

He’s right — gun control doesn’t work. It didn’t work at Columbine, it didn’t work at Virginia Tech, and it didn’t work at the University of Arizona’s nursing school. What makes one think that repealing a useless prohibition on storing firearms in a locked vehicle on campus will have any bearing on increased rates of violent crime?

As much as I believe that people have a right to defend themselves, I hope that people realize what this law means and take steps to rectify this in the future.

Indeed, it means that people who can legally defend themselves off-campus while in transit to and from the university can now legally store their firearms in their locked vehicles while parked on campus. No more, no less.

I’m curious what Mr. Wolgemuth has against such people, and why he wants to “rectify” this legal change when it would strip rights from law-abiding people?

Indeed, Mr. Wolgemuth’s comments make a pretty solid case for allowing people to legally carry concealed on campus — no place, even a “weapon-free zone” like a university campus, can be completely safe from crime. I, like Mr. Wolgemuth, think that the average person is decent and honest, but not everyone is, and I’m not willing to bet my life on it. There’s plenty of violent crime on college campuses, why not allow law-abiding people to have the ability to protect themselves?

A few commenters on sites I’ve read have brought up objections to people carrying guns to public events and mention that cases of people bringing guns to presidential events were rare during the Bush administration. They continue by saying that peaceable protesters against Bush were herded into “free speech zones” and wonder where the outrage was then.

I can’t speak for everyone, but from my perspective “free speech” zones are an abomination against the Constitution, and are a dark mark on our nation’s history. Perhaps a relatively small, easily corrected mark¹, but a mark nonetheless.

During Bush’s presidency, I regularly wrote polite, concise letters to the president and my congressmen voicing my objection to such zones. Such policies weighed heavily upon me when I went to the ballot box². Fortunately, President Obama does not seem to be repeating the same mistakes, and this pleases me greatly.

I think that “zones” of that type are outrageous — there should no more be “free speech zones” than there should be “no quartering troops here zones”, “Second Amendment zones”, “no slavery zones”, or “privacy zones”. The whole country is such a zone.

Of course, there are exceptions: I don’t consider it unreasonable for authorities to remove someone disturbing a public event. For example, if someone is being obnoxious at a presidential speech, town hall meeting, etc., the police can kick them out of that event — interrupting and disrupting a speech or meeting is bad form and impolite. This is completely different than establishing “free speech zones” a distance away from the event that protesters must stand within.

Similarly, I have no problem with the Secret Service and police securing the building where the president will be speaking, prohibiting arms within that building, and inspecting people to ensure that they’re not bringing weapons into his immediate proximity.

Kicking out disruptive people and prohibiting arms within the immediate proximity of the president are not, in my view, infringements on one’s rights.

If the government starts establishing Bush-era “zones”, I’ll be one of the first to be writing to my congressman and voting officials who support such zones out of office.

1. Unlike, say, major things like slavery. [↩]
2. I voted third-party in both of his elections. [↩]

State Sen. Ken Cheuvront countered that the new Arizona law has more potential for danger because the state’s permit system is among the more lenient nationally.

“All I know is that guns and liquor do not mix,” said Cheuvront, a Democrat and the owner of a wine bar in central Phoenix. “They’re putting other patrons and my staff at risk by having a gun in my establishment.”

- Arizona Republic article.

Fantastic! He just demonstrated a total lack of knowledge about the law, as one of the key components of the law is that those who carry firearms into establishments that serve alcohol are forbidden from drinking. Not a drop. Even the journalists, who tend to not know much about firearms-related law, seem to get it. Why doesn’t he?

There’s another option: Senator Cheuvront is merely being disingenuous and a liar, but I suppose that goes with being a politician.

SB1113, the restaurant carry bill, was signed into law by the governor on Monday.

After several years of attempts and being vetoed by former-governor Napolitano, it’s finally been enacted. Just goes to show what an active grassroots movement can do.

It’s been recently reported that North Carolina may soon legalize¹ beer tastings, bringing them to parity with existing laws on wine tasting.

My response: “Took you long enough!” The depths of stupidity that alcohol-related laws in various states plumb amaze me sometimes. What possible reasons could there be to prohibit the public sampling of various beers?

Of course, there’s always someone who has to be a downer:

Criticism of his proposal comes from social conservatives who say beer has more potential for abuse than wine.

Beer is “disproportionately consumed in hazardous amounts,” said the Rev. Mark Creech, director of the Christian Action League of N.C., which says beer accounts for 81 percent of all alcohol drunk in such excessive amounts.

It’s also “the beverage of choice for underage drinkers,” Creech told lawmakers.

This “[insert-item-here] of choice” logic² seems to be something that anti-rights people share, whether they’re opposed to upstanding people possessing guns, sampling beer, or other similar things.

Just as a criminal using a handgun to rob a convenience store should have no bearing whatsoever on my ability to acquire, own, and use handguns in a safe, responsible manner, underage drinkers drinking beer³ should have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not an adult should be able to go to a public beer tasting.

Do some people drink alcohol to excess? Absolutely. Does beer make up the majority of alcohol drunk to excess? I have no idea, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true. Is beer the “beverage of choice” for underage drinkers? I don’t doubt it. Even so, those claims do not matter, because we’re talking about beer tasting in licensed retail stores by adults. The law even limits someone to four (down from six) 2-ounce samples (which I find absurd) per event — that’s two-thirds of a single can of beer. What’s the problem here?

Remember, gun control isn’t about guns — it’s about control. The same thing goes for alcohol control laws.

Anyone find any other topics where “[something] of choice” was an argument used by someone trying to make or keep something illegal or restricted? What about citing the illegal actions and behaviors of minors or criminals in an attempt to restrict the actions of law-abiding adults?

1. I hate using that term, as the default state of rights is “on” — laws shouldn’t ever need to “allow” something, as all actions that don’t infringe on others rights are, by default, “on” unless a law exists that restricts them. [↩]
2. It’s hardly logical. [↩]
3. Most likely because it’s cheap and “gets the job done.” [↩]